Two weeks ago I attended the Nobletek PLM forum in Belgium, where a group of experts, managers and users discussed topics related to my favorite theme: “Is PLM changing? “
Dick Terleth (ADSE) lead a discussion with title “PLM and Configuration Management as a proper profession” or "How can the little man grow?". The context of the discussion was related to the topic: “How is it possible that the benefits of PLM (and Configuration Management) are not understood at C-level?” or with other words: “Why is the value for Configuration Management and PLM not obvious?”.
In my previous post, PLM is doomed unless …., I quoted Ed Lopategui (www.eng-eng.com), who commented that being a PLM champion (or a Configuration Management expert as Dick Terleth would add) is bad for your career. Dick Terleth asked the same question, showing pictures of the self-assured accountant and the Configuration Management or PLM professional. (Thanks Dick for the pictures). Which job would you prefer?
The PLM ROI discussion
A first attempt to understand the difference could be related to the ROI discussion, which seems to be only applicable for PLM. Apparently ERP and financial management systems are a must for companies. No ROI discussion here. Persons who can control/report the numbers seem to have the company under control. For the CEO and CFO the value of PLM is often unclear. And to make it worse, PLM vendors and implementers are fighting for their unique definition of PLM so we cannot blame companies to be confused. This makes it clear that if you haven´t invested significant time to understand PLM, it will be hard to see the big picture. And at C-level people do not invest significant time to understand the topic. It is the C-level´s education, background or work experience that make him/her decide.
So if the C-level is not educated on PLM, somebody has to sell the value to them. Oleg Shilovitsky wrote about it recently in his post Why is it hard to sell PLM ROI and another respected blogger, Joe Barkai, sees the sun come up behind the cloud, in his latest post PLM Service Providers Ready To Deliver Greater Value. If you follow the posts of independent PLM bloggers (although who is 100 % independent), you will see a common understanding that implementing PLM currently requires a business transformation as old processes were not designed for a modern infrastructure and digital capabilities.
PLM is about (changing) business processes
Back to the Nobletek PLM forum. Douglas Noordhoorn, the moderator of the forum challenged the audience stating that PLM has always been there (or not there – if you haven´t discovered it). It is all about managing the product development processes in a secure way. Not talking about “Best Practices” but “Good practices." Those who had a proper education in the aerospace industry learned that good processes are crucial to deliver planes that can fly and are reliable.
Of course, the aerospace industry is not the same as other industries. However, more and more other industries in my network, like Nuclear new build, the construction industry or other Engineering, Procurement and Construction companies want to learn from aerospace and automotive good practices. They realize they are losing market share due to the fact that the cost of failure combined with relative high labor costs makes them too expensive. But from where to they get their proper good practices education?
The PLM professional?
And this was an interesting point coming up from the Nobletek forum. There is no proper, product agnostic education for PLM (anymore). If you study logistics, you will learn a lot about various processes and how they can be optimized for a certain scenario. When you study engineering, there is a lot of focus on engineering disciplines and methods. But there is no time to educate engineers in-depth to understand the whole product development process and how to control it. Sometimes I give a guest lecture to engineering classes. It is never an important part of the education.
To become a PLM professional
For those who never had any education in standard engineering processes, there is Frank Watts Engineering control book, which probably would be a good base. But it is not the PLM professional only that should be aware, of the good practices. Moreover, all companies manufacturing products, plants or buildings should learn these basics. As a side step, it would make a discussion around BIM more clear. At this time, manufacturing companies are every time discovering their good practices in the hard way.
And when this education exists, companies will be aware that it is not only about the tools, but it is the way the information is flowing through the organization. Even there is a chance that somewhere at C-level someone has been educated and understands the value. For ERP everyone agrees. For PLM, it remains a labyrinth of processes designed by companies learning on the job currently. Vendors and implementers pushing what they have learned. Engineering is often considered as a hard-to-manage discipline. As a SAP country manager once said to me: “Engineers are actually resources that do not want be managed, but we will get them …..”
And then the future ……
I support the demand for a better education in engineering processes especially for industries outside aerospace or automotive. I doubt if it will have a significant impact although it might create the visibility and understanding for PLM at C-level. No need anymore for the lone ranger who fights for PLM. Companies will have better educated people that understand the need for good practices that exist. These good practices will be the base for companies when discussing with PLM vendors and implementers. Instead of vendors and implementers pushing their vision, you can articulate, and follow your vision.
However, we need a new standard book too. We are currently in the middle of a big change. Thanks to modern technology and connectivity the world is changing. I wrote and spoke about it in: Did you notice PLM is changing?
This is a change of generations and concepts which have not been foreseen by Frank Watts and others. What will be the new standard for data-centric companies instead of document based control?
The digital revolution is here (Industry 4.0), and here (digital revolution), and here (the third industrial revolution).
This awareness needs to become visible at C-level.
Who will educate them ??
Now back to soccer – 4 years ago Spain-The Netherlands was the last match – the final. Now it is the first match for them – will the Dutch change the game ?
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 9, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Ilan
Hi Jos,
I would add to your points that these days PLM is growing out of the engineering world into other disciplines which makes it even more difficult sometimes. Also different vendors now come up with new definitions of PLM or next generation.
That being said I attended a webinar by one of the major PLM vendors and I can tell you that PLM vendors are conveying a much clearer message about PLM and its ROI to C-level execs than they did a few years ago, in my view.
Ilan thanks for your feedback – I agree PLM should be considered beyond engineering – that’s where the real value comes from modern PLM. I am not sure about the PLM ROI messages from the vendors still. Most numbers are coming from streamlining existing processes, being more efficient. Important benefits, however the major benefits come from being able to work different and become more flexible in your organization due to the data centric approach. This I have not seen articulated in business value yet by the vendors as it is more a business transformation. That’s where the major consultancy firms come in.
Best regards – Jos
LikeLike
June 27, 2014 at 11:41 pm
Ed Lopategui
Hi Jos,
Late to the party again, but I wanted to add a few thoughts to this excellent article.
With regard to the educational challenge… Whether you study logistics or engineering, where is the time in those curriculums to cram in PLM when so many other technologies also need better coverage? Extending program length seems impractical unless you start unimaginably early. Perhaps this is signifying the death of the old educational model many have long been suspecting – the whole focus on a degree for X years and then you’re done. Perhaps the answer is continuous learning, but how do we create the right institutions and cost models for that? Most engineers interleave their education with internship, but corporations (for the most part) tend not to be interested in long term educational investment, because ironically economic investment is surprisingly short-sighted. Conundrum.
Also with good practices from aerospace. While aerospace has been an early adopter because of product complexity I remain doubtful on what can be applied elsewhere because the market environment in aerospace is highly political, protectionist, and anti-competitive. It’s unfortunately the result of prohibitive entry costs, extreme regulatory bureaucracy, and national and local interests battling over industrial entitlements banked on public monies. The result has been solutions tailored to exist in multi-billion or trillion dollar once-in-a-decade procurements. Understandably, taking those practices and distilling them for more dynamic, competitive markets has been problematic. That distillation process is non-trivial and is the proverbial bump in the road so many have been tripping over.
Ed thanks for your comments. Never too late in a world where everything you publish stays. Agree with both points. Continuous learning is the future. How would you be able to learn new things without that ? And yes, aerospace has set the base but it is not the best benchmark for other industries.
LikeLike